Through out the years (sheesh been a long time since 1998) on the HR board we have discussed topics that included Sabbath and Maiden. The Ozzy vs. Dio, the Guillan vs. Hughes or the Dianno vs. Dickinson and Dickinson vs. Bayley. Since this is HardRadio the Heavy Metal Site, we touched on these subjects.
But recently I have been discussing metal music with young generation of "metal" guys that no longer consider Sabbath or Maiden Metal music. The bands just simply are not heavy enough, fast enough and should be considered "classic rock". These guys are into Lamb of God, Nevermore, Children of Bodom.
I completely understand that labeling types of music is such a personal "thing", yet I always thought that I listened to metal music which included the Sabbs and Maiden.
Perhaps I missed some sort of evolving thinking on the new current state of metal music is now, but I was curious as to what others HR thought on the issue (we have been at it here on some form or another for 30 years or more for others)

I'm only 35 and by that time in the 80's there was a thing called "Heavy Metal" there were bans like Iron Maiden and others that were heavier. I didn't reallyknew there was a difference between maiden and anthrax and Exodus, I just had the cassettes and listened to the music. I knew they were "Thrash Metal" but also "Metal".
By that time there wasn't public internet so communication were less explosive and you had to have a physical method to transport music, apart from someone to give you the music first or pressing rec on the radio whenever a tune sounded(as metal was a subgenre it was never aired, anyways).
Long Hair, Blue Jeans, And a tshirt with your favorite band on it was the customary clothing heavy metal was developing. People listened to Metal with such intensity that it rapidly grew into their culture and began to change the way they dressed. That was "Metal".

I can assume these "younger" generations lack the experience of living in those years and they didn't have the chance to contemplate and see the world with their own eyes during that period.

Then we go further back and you enter into what "formed" Metal music. Critics say Sabbath was the first band, I have heard many "critics" say that. And we know younger people generally tend to dissent on almost everything just for the sake of it, therefore, they can pretend to not "acknowledge" the consensus among the "critics".

Younger people may trace an era without cellphones like impossible to imagine, or we an era with no tv, but those years are fairly near to us all. So there's a gap in perception that is understandable. }

There is also the element of "tribe" culture in the people. Music has the capacity to move you. "Harmony is the language of the universe" Stockhausen mentioned many times in interviews how music can change the way someone behaves and its entire culture, logically. People tend to dress in the "style" they love. It's real easy to google "Sleaze" and you may get a certain culture way of dressing tht comes through the music and its elements. There are many videos onm youtube where you can see how people dress according to the "Genre" they listen to, not limited to metal genres.

(Please take all of of ths with a grain of salt, as I'm pretty much brainstorming ideas, with no editing, he).

As I am writing this essay (haha) sounds Alice Cooper - Prince of Darkness from Raise your Fist and Yell.

So the further you move into heavier genres the more distant you are from the begining so certain perspectives may be lost in along the way.
Because what really matters, what the expert say or what people are discussing in a room while having fun? It's generally wise to not contradict the audence. Maybe we can agree in that it isn't worth to involve yourself too deeply on these matters.

Consider Alcatrazz

Alcatrazz was a heavy metal band formed in 1983 in Los Angeles by Graham Bonnet. If you listen to some tunes you will say thats not heavy at all. Then you arrive into "A HM band that sometimes makes non-HM songs" Whic is quite ridicoulous from any perspective. For once, music cannot be enclosed in a "Style" AS stockhausen mentiones in hislectures life is much more than a "style" and styles will never progres sbecause if they progress they stop being what they were so they arent in that particular style anymore.

That's why music cannot be subjected and encapsulted to a particular style as it limits real music. That's why in interviews musicians sy repeatedly "People said we were playing "metal" we were just making music and hacing fun without any particular "style" on mind". And yup, that seems to be the most reasonable thing just because of the nature of music.

I dislike Dogmatization so probably anyone is entitled to understand metal as he can. for sure, there are many definitions of Metal as points of view about it there are.

Songs from Balck Sabbath are fefinitly Hevay Metal specuially when you consider the Dio Era. Neon-Knights for example has tons of HM elements.
Judas Priest defined Heavy Metal in an interview:

From Wikipedia: Heavy metal is a genre of rock music
Full Definition of HEAVY METAL: energetic and highly amplified electronic rock music having a hard beat merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heavy metal

last.fm: Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely in the United Kingdom

So Metal is pretty much uunder the umbrella of "Rock" style of Music. There we have "Hard" Rock so you can start another dicussion : Is (this band) hard rock?

Critic has already nominated Black Sabbath as one of the pillars were Metal music grew. There is certainly more development and mutations and additions, that further complicate these matters of definition. Widly accepted? yes. Accepted by the random Metal maniac one can have a chat with? Not always. Culture is general but it can also have a distinctive color for a person and it can be so different and they can dissent so much on the public view of things that the final result can be the total separation of the individual with the general opinion.

First, thanks for bringing our stuff back!!!!!
And now a little late, but better late than never.
I was able to catch Black Sabbath The End Tour concert in Houston. It was great!!! It never gets old for me.
Yeah yeah yeah!!! Same ol' songs.
They stuck to the classics, including Dirty Women from the Technical Ecstasy LP, Rat Salad from Paranoid LP and Behind the Wall of Sleep from Black Sabbath LP. And it was great.
If I have to rate it with other BS concerts, this was second only to the Black Sabbath concert at Ozzfest 1997 in San Antonio. But that was nearly 20 years ago, they were much younger (well, we all were) and the show was very energetic. This one was sort of no frills show, the days of excessive light shows or gigantic background sets are a thing of the past. So this was just about the music and the fans as Ozzy was very respectful towards the crowd, constantly thanking them for 50 years of supporting Black Sabbath.
The music and sound was great as I was able to notice quirks and odds, guitar sound a little off or voice occasionally cracking, but it was nice to know they were playing LIVE. (I was talking to the person next to me and said Motley Crue's concert at the same venue was not very good as the sound track started to skip during one of their songs and Sixx had to apologize to the crowd and telling them it is the way things are these days funny)
I don't know if this is The End, but if it is, they did it in style. (just too bad no Bill Ward, I always thought he was great in all the shows I saw him play)
Something bad about the show? The encore is always Paranoid. I like the song, but come on, there is a whole library available. I always Wheels of Confusion and closing with the Straightener (In some of their show they played Fluff through the sound system when they were disassembling the stage equipment)
They are METAL!